boardagent_claim_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute two real behavioral facts: failure semantics ('Returns an error if unavailable') and an auth prerequisite ('Requires write role'). It still omits whether the claim is reversible/releasable, what the returned error or success looks like, and whether it mutates persistent state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the failure and permission caveats. Every sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description covers the essentials of failure and permission but leaves the return value, state effects, and parameter meaning unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place semantics could be added, yet it never mentions 'id' or 'agent_id'. The names are largely self-explanatory, which softens the gap, but the description does not compensate for the coverage hole.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Claim/lock') and resource ('todo task') with the acting party ('for an agent'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, position itself against siblings like boardagent_complete_task or boardagent_update_task, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'todo' implies usage (claim only tasks in a todo state), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for the adjacent operations (complete, update, create). Usage is implied rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.